sil wrote:Wouldn't #2 also be TBD? How can that be settled yet when we haven't played a postseason game yet?

I've already said the Bylsma is out of chances as of this post season. That point was that Bylsma was not the problem at the time that Fire Bylsma thread was started by a Troll.

Been on here since the earliest days on this board and I am done with defending myself as being arrogant or whatever. I've been wrong in the past and will be again, but not on the Bylsma issue at that time or on the fact that Fleury struggles with consistency.

IMHO

So the defense was perfect? You seem to ignore that every time. You are saying that the only issue was leaky goals and not the defensive scheme where forwards weren't covering back and defensemen were constantly caught out of position or covering the wrong people?

Your age on the board doesn't change the fact that you are talking down on people for the exact same things you are playing victim to.

sil wrote:Wouldn't #2 also be TBD? How can that be settled yet when we haven't played a postseason game yet?

I've already said the Bylsma is out of chances as of this post season. That point was that Bylsma was not the problem at the time that Fire Bylsma thread was started by a Troll.

Been on here since the earliest days on this board and I am done with defending myself as being arrogant or whatever. I've been wrong in the past and will be again, but not on the Bylsma issue at that time or on the fact that Fleury struggles with consistency.

IMHO

I should've clarified that I wasn't really asking the question...more just getting at the inadequacy of singleing out specific aspects of the team (coaching, goaltending, defense, etc...) and then using the result of a team failure to justify said scapegoat.

bhaw wrote:I don't regret it at all. At the time, he had a great team playing like crap. I sited many areas where the team was absolutely struggling due to an extremely poor team defense scheme. You're being extremely hypocritical in your stance, and it appears everyone sees that.

Your insistence that Fleury was the only problem shows you are just intentionally being dense.

Interesting how you twist this to try and support your stance, but I NEVER said Fleury was the ONLY problem. I said Defense and Goaltending were circular, and that a team that was not confident in it's goaltending will lose it's defensive shape and leaky goals will kill a team's system no matter what it is. I also agreed that the D needed to be better, but said that it was not possible when a goalie was not able to stop a beach ball at the time.

My position is and has remained consistent. It actually quite the huge compliment to Fleury in the sense that in my eyes he is the CLEARLY the most important piece of the Penguins hopes

bhaw wrote:I don't regret it at all. At the time, he had a great team playing like crap. I sited many areas where the team was absolutely struggling due to an extremely poor team defense scheme. You're being extremely hypocritical in your stance, and it appears everyone sees that.

Your insistence that Fleury was the only problem shows you are just intentionally being dense.

Interesting how you twist this to try and support your stance, but I NEVER said Fleury was the ONLY problem. I said Defense and Goaltending were circular, and that a team that was not confident in it's goaltending will lose it's defensive shape and leaky goals will kill a team's system no matter what it is. I also agreed that the D needed to be better, but said that it was not possible when a goalie was not able to stop a beach ball at the time.

My position is and has remained consistent. It actually quite the huge compliment to Fleury in the sense that in my eyes he is the CLEARLY the most important piece of the Penguins hopes

My stance was that the team was playing like **** (they were). My stance was that the system being implemented was unacceptable (it was). My stance was that the defense was absolutely abysmal (it was). My stance was that the complete mental break downs and loss of composure was unacceptable (it was). My stance was that the goal tending was not performing (it wasn't). My stance was that a team playing like that over the course of two seasons given the talent level is deserving of a coach willing to make those adjustments (hence, get rid of DB because up until 2 months ago, he showed no desire to change the system). Since then, he actually stopped force feeding the crap defensive system and offensive breakout system that was being read by every single team they played more than once a year. Hence, I stopped harping on DB.

What about this is uninformed? Since you pretty much agree with all of it up until the end...

The whole point is that you wanted to ride your high horse into the sunset and talk down to everyone. Then you play victim "woe is me... everyone bothers me about Fleury." But go ahead and keep generalizing everyone you don't agree with.

sil wrote:Wouldn't #2 also be TBD? How can that be settled yet when we haven't played a postseason game yet?

I've already said the Bylsma is out of chances as of this post season. That point was that Bylsma was not the problem at the time that Fire Bylsma thread was started by a Troll.

Been on here since the earliest days on this board and I am done with defending myself as being arrogant or whatever. I've been wrong in the past and will be again, but not on the Bylsma issue at that time or on the fact that Fleury struggles with consistency.

IMHO

I should've clarified that I wasn't really asking the question...more just getting at the inadequacy of singleing out specific aspects of the team (coaching, goaltending, defense, etc...) and then using the result of a team failure to justify said scapegoat.

Whatever. At this point I am not responding in this thread no matter how elastic the next poster's poetic license stating MY stance.

I made a post about the Fire Bylsma crowd digging a hole in celebrating another win. I pointed out I have only gotten involved in three majoe "discussions" this season and remained consistent on all three and somehow end up being Mark Madden. That is absolute crap.

It's all good though. Bylsma has a good chance at a 2nd trip the Finals and with a break or two a second Cup.

bhaw wrote:I don't regret it at all. At the time, he had a great team playing like crap. I sited many areas where the team was absolutely struggling due to an extremely poor team defense scheme. You're being extremely hypocritical in your stance, and it appears everyone sees that.

Your insistence that Fleury was the only problem shows you are just intentionally being dense.

Interesting how you twist this to try and support your stance, but I NEVER said Fleury was the ONLY problem. I said Defense and Goaltending were circular, and that a team that was not confident in it's goaltending will lose it's defensive shape and leaky goals will kill a team's system no matter what it is. I also agreed that the D needed to be better, but said that it was not possible when a goalie was not able to stop a beach ball at the time.

My position is and has remained consistent. It actually quite the huge compliment to Fleury in the sense that in my eyes he is the CLEARLY the most important piece of the Penguins hopes

My stance was that the team was playing like **** (they were). My stance was that the system being implemented was unacceptable (it was). My stance was that the defense was absolutely abysmal (it was). My stance was that the complete mental break downs and loss of composure was unacceptable (it was). My stance was that the goal tending was not performing (it wasn't). My stance was that a team playing like that over the course of two seasons given the talent level is deserving of a coach willing to make those adjustments (hence, get rid of DB because up until 2 months ago, he showed no desire to change the system). Since then, he actually stopped force feeding the crap defensive system and offensive breakout system that was being read by every single team they played more than once a year. Hence, I stopped harping on DB.

What about this is uninformed? Since you pretty much agree with all of it up until the end...

The whole point is that you wanted to ride your high horse into the sunset and talk down to everyone. Then you play victim "woe is me... everyone bothers me about Fleury." But go ahead and keep generalizing everyone you don't agree with.

Dude, i think you have a problem then, not me. If you wanted Bylsma to make ajdustments, then I wasn't talking to you. There was only one Fire Bylsma thread - not a Bylsma needs to make adjustments thread. Firing Bylsma would have been just as nuts as sending Fleury to the minors - especially in hindsight given that you just admitted that Bylsma got better - as I was suggesting Fleury needed to. Fleury has been a different goalie, and we STILL give up golden scoring opportunities.

The Snapshot wrote:Whoever on this board agreed with that sentiment at that time should dig themselves a hole and jump in it. There were some who simply stated that he needs to go deep in these playoffs, which is perfectly valid - but the others.....uniformed.

Perhaps you need to mind your words then. Based on your reaction to me even mentioning your Fleury comments, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be thrilled if MAF got a shut out next game and I said "Anyone who ever doubted Fleury doesn't know anything about hockey."

bhaw wrote:I don't regret it at all. At the time, he had a great team playing like crap. I sited many areas where the team was absolutely struggling due to an extremely poor team defense scheme. You're being extremely hypocritical in your stance, and it appears everyone sees that.

Your insistence that Fleury was the only problem shows you are just intentionally being dense.

Interesting how you twist this to try and support your stance, but I NEVER said Fleury was the ONLY problem. I said Defense and Goaltending were circular, and that a team that was not confident in it's goaltending will lose it's defensive shape and leaky goals will kill a team's system no matter what it is. I also agreed that the D needed to be better, but said that it was not possible when a goalie was not able to stop a beach ball at the time.

My position is and has remained consistent. It actually quite the huge compliment to Fleury in the sense that in my eyes he is the CLEARLY the most important piece of the Penguins hopes

The team defense was bad last year well before Fleury started to struggle, and that much was made quite apparent with the incredible difference in results when he was in goal rather than Johnson or Thiessen.

In hindsight, Fleury playing well and covering up those mistakes may have played a large role in their eventual downfall; the team was getting results with Fleury in goal and could write off the poorer games as Johnson/Thiessen playing poorly, so perhaps Shero and Bylsma felt there was no need to change things

Are the people arguing with snapshot actually disagreeing with what he said about Fleury? It seems like it was true at the time, and i'd bet a whole lot on it being true for long periods of time again in the future. Also, are you arguing that it would not have been puzzling for a coach to get fired in the middle of a short season when the team was in a playoff spot and there was no reason to think they weren't a cup contender? And I get accused of arguing for arguments sake...

The Snapshot wrote:Dude, i think you have a problem then, not me. If you wanted Bylsma to make ajdustments, then I wasn't talking to you. There was only one Fire Bylsma thread - not a Bylsma needs to make adjustments thread. Firing Bylsma would have been just as nuts as sending Fleury to the minors - especially in hindsight given that you just admitted that Bylsma got better - as I was suggesting Fleury needed to. Fleury has been a different goalie, and we STILL give up golden scoring opportunities.

I'd say you're the one with the problem because you won't let this go. You drag this dead horse, cheap shots in hand, back into every thread you can. The prevailing frustration was that, despite winning, DB was not making the adjustments--traditionally--necessary to win in the playoffs. When the Pens finally did make those adjustments, the frustrations subsided.

IMO, it's because the coaching staff made significant adjustments. Others think it was a speech by Vokoun. Others think the goalies are just playing better. Whatever. Like a certain orifice, we all have opinions too.

I think the consensus is the Pens are now, whatever the catalyst may have been, playing like a playoff winner, so it's a dead topic. Until, for reasons I can only speculate on, you bring it back to life again.

Idoit40fans wrote:Are the people arguing with snapshot actually disagreeing with what he said about Fleury? It seems like it was true at the time, and i'd bet a whole lot on it being true for long periods of time again in the future. Also, are you arguing that it would not have been puzzling for a coach to get fired in the middle of a short season when the team was in a playoff spot and there was no reason to think they weren't a cup contender? And I get accused of arguing for arguments sake...

I'm not even sure what the issue is, except that one poster who I actually enjoy reading took issue with something I said about something - but that had nothing to do with what he actually said.

I was jabbing at one poster in particular who posts nothing of merit and I offended apparently multiple people who then attack in a pack - yet have not proven a single thing I said was incorrect. Then I am tweaked at by folks apparently upset that I don't end all my posts with hugs and IMHO instead of a firm position.

Personally I don't buy Snapshot's argument that both goalies were struggling and thus the defense was bad, and that, out of nowhere, both goalies started playing far better at the same exact time which in turn suddenly made the defense look good.

Personally I think Vokoun's intermission speech had more to do with the Penguins defense to stop screwing around, make simple plays, and for the whole team to buy in - thus making life for both our goalies far easier, and leading to a lengthy winning streak where we saw them winning games 2-1 and 3-2 instead of 6-5 and 7-6.

Some who have a better eye for the x's and o's may be able to explain what the team is doing differently - but I categorically disagree that both goaltenders magically started playing well at the same time thus effecting the play around them. I don't give goalies, let alone both of them, that kind of value in determining how a team around them plays. I think the team most likely has more of an effect on the goalie - something I believe mikey has mentioned in one of the threads in which he was educating me on the goalies of the 80's... err maybe that was another thread.

Idoit40fans wrote:Are the people arguing with snapshot actually disagreeing with what he said about Fleury? It seems like it was true at the time, and i'd bet a whole lot on it being true for long periods of time again in the future. Also, are you arguing that it would not have been puzzling for a coach to get fired in the middle of a short season when the team was in a playoff spot and there was no reason to think they weren't a cup contender? And I get accused of arguing for arguments sake...

I'm not even sure what the issue is, except that one poster who I actually enjoy reading took issue with something I said about something - but that had nothing to do with what he actually said.

I was jabbing at one poster in particular who posts nothing of merit and I offended apparently multiple people who then attack in a pack - yet have not proven a single thing I said was incorrect. Then I am tweaked at by folks apparently upset that I don't end all my posts with hugs and IMHO instead of a firm position.

I could be wrong, IMHO......

This is where it went wrong:

Whoever on this board agreed with that sentiment at that time should dig themselves a hole and jump in it.

You then went on a self-righteous campaign of you're right and anyone who disagrees is uninformed. People were unhappy with Bylsma at the time, me included. It appeared that he either couldn't or wouldn't adjust his approach or system. The team was playing lazy defense and lacked any semblance of discipline. This had been going on for quite some time, dating back to last season. At that point in time it was perfectly reasonable for people to discuss if the coach should be fired. You then created your crusade against the goaltending. Your stance was that the goaltending was creating the lousy defensive zone coverage. Now, both the coaching and the goaltending are performing at the expected level but only the people questioning the coach who was underperforming at the time are wrong and uninformed. You are apparently free of the same standards you place on them. The final nail in the coffin is the arrogance of saying "I'm right". No your opinion was the goaltending was poor, not the defense. Other people said the defense was poor and placed that at the feet of the coach. Both started playing better at the same time which is pretty much the only way you go on a 15 game winning streak. To come out and say "I'm right" just comes off as arrogant and belittling. You may in fact be right. You can't prove you are right. You can't prove it wasn't the defense that started playing better first. One makes the other better and vice versa. Its not your message that makes people mad. Its your delivery.

Idoit40fans wrote:Are the people arguing with snapshot actually disagreeing with what he said about Fleury? It seems like it was true at the time, and i'd bet a whole lot on it being true for long periods of time again in the future. Also, are you arguing that it would not have been puzzling for a coach to get fired in the middle of a short season when the team was in a playoff spot and there was no reason to think they weren't a cup contender? And I get accused of arguing for arguments sake...

I'm not even sure what the issue is, except that one poster who I actually enjoy reading took issue with something I said about something - but that had nothing to do with what he actually said.

I was jabbing at one poster in particular who posts nothing of merit and I offended apparently multiple people who then attack in a pack - yet have not proven a single thing I said was incorrect. Then I am tweaked at by folks apparently upset that I don't end all my posts with hugs and IMHO instead of a firm position.

I could be wrong, IMHO......

This is where it went wrong:

Whoever on this board agreed with that sentiment at that time should dig themselves a hole and jump in it.

You then went on a self-righteous campaign of you're right and anyone who disagrees is uninformed. People were unhappy with Bylsma at the time, me included. It appeared that he either couldn't or wouldn't adjust his approach or system. The team was playing lazy defense and lacked any semblance of discipline. This had been going on for quite some time, dating back to last season. At that point in time it was perfectly reasonable for people to discuss if the coach should be fired. You then created your crusade against the goaltending. Your stance was that the goaltending was creating the lousy defensive zone coverage. Now, both the coaching and the goaltending are performing at the expected level but only the people questioning the coach who was underperforming at the time are wrong and uninformed. You are apparently free of the same standards you place on them. The final nail in the coffin is the arrogance of saying "I'm right". No your opinion was the goaltending was poor, not the defense. Other people said the defense was poor and placed that at the feet of the coach. Both started playing better at the same time which is pretty much the only way you go on a 15 game winning streak. To come out and say "I'm right" just comes off as arrogant and belittling. You may in fact be right. You can't prove you are right. You can't prove it wasn't the defense that started playing better first. One makes the other better and vice versa. Its not your message that makes people mad. Its your delivery.

- I said people who wanted Bylsma fired "at that time" were nuts. They were. It was panic born of three seasons where they won 1 playoff series. In the end, it was clearly reactionary and wrong. How can you deny that?

- I said defense cannot improve in front of a goalie giving up 2 soft goals a game. Soft goals are by definition "the goalie should have had that" - and those are easy for even Hockey Newbs to see. Fleury's inconsistency is documented by just about anyone who analyzes hockey. It has dogged him forever, and that is NOT my opinion - it is fact. At the time of the Fire Bylsma thread he was playing terrible and yes it coincided with Vokoun hitting a rough patch as well. Goalies know when they've missed one, and Fleury knew he was not making saves he should have.

- That is all I said. Everything else is what others want to read into it. When one poster after another wants to stretch my words or blatantly twist them because they don't like the tone of my posts - I guess I can defend myself or just ignore it. When I choose to defend myself against 7 or 8 folks who happened to support a ludicrous idea I guess that makes me "insert issue with Snapshot here".

- Funny that the Tangradi just needs quality ice time crowd doesn't seem so aggressive.....

At this point the season is going so well I don't even care. I guess I'll just enjoy the games while the board now takes on the momentum of the "James Neal is an AHL player without Malkin" line of thinking.

I support every current Penguin with the exception of Tanner Glass. This team is built perfectly. Every player is capable of giving what is needed. If the team fails it will be on goaltending or the coach. I'll let Shero decide which, but I don't think they are going to fail.

I know Hockey. Many on this board do. Many others do not. Those that do know probably aren't upset by the previous statement.

Bylsma has righted the ship, but before anyone wants to go ahead and give him an extension let's see how well the pens preform in the playoffs. It seems like the Pens are steamrolling teams or the Pens are the ones getting steamrolled, never seems to be an in-between.

shmenguin wrote:bylsma has sucked. bylsma has been good. fleury has sucked. fleury has been good. our defense has sucked. our defense has been good.

all of the above parties deserve some degree of scrutiny/skepticism and some degree of confidence.

I agree that Bylsma has now been handed the keys to a sports car. Just about every assessment I read or listen to about the Pens right now ends with "as long as their goaltending doesn't reprise last year's playoff". No mention of whether Byslma can coach or not, but honestly he needs to go very deep with this team, because now he even has Vokoun as an option.

SolidSnake wrote:Bylsma has righted the ship, but before anyone wants to go ahead and give him an extension let's see how well the pens preform in the playoffs. It seems like the Pens are steamrolling teams or the Pens are the ones getting steamrolled, never seems to be an in-between.

I haven't seen anyone say he needs an extension, just a stay of execution.

Idoit40fans wrote:Are the people arguing with snapshot actually disagreeing with what he said about Fleury? It seems like it was true at the time, and i'd bet a whole lot on it being true for long periods of time again in the future. Also, are you arguing that it would not have been puzzling for a coach to get fired in the middle of a short season when the team was in a playoff spot and there was no reason to think they weren't a cup contender? And I get accused of arguing for arguments sake...

I'm not even sure what the issue is, except that one poster who I actually enjoy reading took issue with something I said about something - but that had nothing to do with what he actually said.

I was jabbing at one poster in particular who posts nothing of merit and I offended apparently multiple people who then attack in a pack - yet have not proven a single thing I said was incorrect. Then I am tweaked at by folks apparently upset that I don't end all my posts with hugs and IMHO instead of a firm position.

I could be wrong, IMHO......

This is where it went wrong:

Whoever on this board agreed with that sentiment at that time should dig themselves a hole and jump in it.

You then went on a self-righteous campaign of you're right and anyone who disagrees is uninformed. People were unhappy with Bylsma at the time, me included. It appeared that he either couldn't or wouldn't adjust his approach or system. The team was playing lazy defense and lacked any semblance of discipline. This had been going on for quite some time, dating back to last season. At that point in time it was perfectly reasonable for people to discuss if the coach should be fired. You then created your crusade against the goaltending. Your stance was that the goaltending was creating the lousy defensive zone coverage. Now, both the coaching and the goaltending are performing at the expected level but only the people questioning the coach who was underperforming at the time are wrong and uninformed. You are apparently free of the same standards you place on them. The final nail in the coffin is the arrogance of saying "I'm right". No your opinion was the goaltending was poor, not the defense. Other people said the defense was poor and placed that at the feet of the coach. Both started playing better at the same time which is pretty much the only way you go on a 15 game winning streak. To come out and say "I'm right" just comes off as arrogant and belittling. You may in fact be right. You can't prove you are right. You can't prove it wasn't the defense that started playing better first. One makes the other better and vice versa. Its not your message that makes people mad. Its your delivery.

- I said people who wanted Bylsma fired "at that time" were nuts. They were. It was panic born of three seasons where they won 1 playoff series. In the end, it was clearly reactionary and wrong. How can you deny that?

Its not your message that makes people mad. Its your delivery.

- I said defense cannot improve in front of a goalie giving up 2 soft goals a game. Soft goals are by definition "the goalie should have had that" - and those are easy for even Hockey Newbs to see. Fleury's inconsistency is documented by just about anyone who analyzes hockey. It has dogged him forever, and that is NOT my opinion - it is fact. At the time of the Fire Bylsma thread he was playing terrible and yes it coincided with Vokoun hitting a rough patch as well. Goalies know when they've missed one, and Fleury knew he was not making saves he should have. Its not your message that makes people mad. Its your delivery.

- That is all I said. Everything else is what others want to read into it. When one poster after another wants to stretch my words or blatantly twist them because they don't like the tone of my posts - I guess I can defend myself or just ignore it. When I choose to defend myself against 7 or 8 folks who happened to support a ludicrous idea I guess that makes me "insert issue with Snapshot here".

Its not your message that makes people mad. Its your delivery.

- Funny that the Tangradi just needs quality ice time crowd doesn't seem so aggressive.....

Its not your message that makes people mad. Its your delivery.

At this point the season is going so well I don't even care. I guess I'll just enjoy the games while the board now takes on the momentum of the "James Neal is an AHL player without Malkin" line of thinking.

I support every current Penguin with the exception of Tanner Glass. This team is built perfectly. Every player is capable of giving what is needed. If the team fails it will be on goaltending or the coach. I'll let Shero decide which, but I don't think they are going to fail.

I know Hockey. Many on this board do. Many others do not. Those that do know probably aren't upset by the previous statement.Its not your message that makes people mad. Its your delivery.

You are being abrasive just to be abrasive.

P.S. I would say 3 seasons is a long enough time for an issue to be present to start questioning it.